Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday May 27, 2012 @03:37PM
from the sticks-and-stones dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Malaysian Government has recently passed an amendment to their Evidence Act that has been designed to hold cyber bullies accountable for their malicious tirades on blogs or Facebook Walls. Unfortunately, the amendment has been worded such that 'If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content' and 'If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.' What these raft of amendments have done is shifted the burden of proof to the accused. One is considered guilty until proven innocent. Even the simple act of posting an offending message on a friend's Facebook Wall could get that friend, and not the original poster, into trouble with this law. Although the amendments were initiated by good intentions, a conspiracist can see how easily this law can be misused to curb dissent in Malaysia."

Fair enough, but Obama is also guilty of murder and the people who are sent to Gitmo are also guilty until proven innocent and no such proof is even allowed. We also use torture in the US. Does Malaysia?

Indeed, so the solution is to post something defamatory about the king using a picture and the name of one of the politicians or lawlords who passed this bill, then they'll be able to see the obvious flaw in their plan.

Frankly the whole "cyber bullying" thing is bullshit, there has been trolls and douchebags on the net as long as there HAS been a net, see Gabe's theory [penny-arcade.com] which has been proven true time and time again. IRL bullying is violence and real threats of violence, whereas trolls are like monkeys at the zoo flinging poo, don't like it? don't stand next to the monkey cage. Nearly every site has ToS that lets the mods banhammer the real shitheads and most places have mods that have a VERY limited tolerance for doucheba

We're not talking about random people on the internet that insult you because of something you wrote, we're talking about people you KNOW in real life that smear every single one of your online precenses with hate messages, racial slander, sexual references and so on.

In the case of Facebook and most instant messaging services, there's always an ignore/block feature that helps people deal with that. I can't really say I have much sympathy for a victim of cyberbullying if he doesn't make use of the available tools to block such people from contacting him online.

Not at all, we just had a politician who committed what might, to the untrained eye, look like fraud, but she's been held to account and it turns out it wasn't fraud at all, it was an "oversight". Not above the law at all, just remarkably bouyant is all.

Not at all, we just had a politician who committed what might, to the untrained eye, look like fraud, but she's been held to account and it turns out it wasn't fraud at all, it was an "oversight"

In Malaysia, corruption is so rampant that they actually spent 250 Million local currency (about 100 Million USD) to raise 3,000 cows

When that matter was exposed, that female politician, the one who got the generous 250 Million gift, insisted that she's not guilty of anything

And in deed, she was NOT guilty of anything - for in Malaysia, as long as you are a part of the ruling elite, you can corrupt away and the authority will use the word "oversight" to explain away how the money was lost

I believe the discussion was about the allegations of Romney's bullying someone in high school. The teacher went ballistic when someone suggested Obama might have done something similar. And if you listen carefully you can hear the teacher say "Bush was a shitty president".

One teacher says something stupid in a classroom, we extrapolate as if it's federal law. Someone points out that this is dumb and someone else cites something completely different as an example of the first.
Unwashed dolt comes out of the woodwork to tell us how communism is the answer... thread spins down the rabbit hole.

this is common faire in the US.
When I was in high school, we held a mock election like every other school. We were instructed to vote "democrat" OR "republican", one third of the school wrote in "ralph nader" instead, but they publicly annouced on the loudspeaker that it was not acceptable to vote for a third party so the votes would be thrown out, and students reprimanded.
But this was some time ago, when both major parties where amicable enough publicly to tolerate their each other's existance. It seem

Because none of this is true. The king of Thailand has very significant political influence - none of the military coups during his reign happened without his approval. He comes out against those defamation laws occasionally because it looks better when he does. If he really didn't want these laws to exist they wouldn't be there, though.

Yes, most Thais do love the king, but that's partly because the actual role of the king can't be discussed.

That's Thailand, but don't let that put you off avoiding Malaysia as a holiday destination. Malaysia has Islam has its state religion, but claims to offer freedom of religion. Now, as you can imagine I don't agree with Islam, yet I'm sanguine on the whole thing. Sure, I spent the best part of a day nailed to a tree for these people, and they then go off following some schizophrenic local warlord. Sorry, that seems really ungrateful to me, and don't get me started on those Mormons and their crazy notion that they'll one day become space gods.

They have freedom of religion, yet by law Malaysians of a certain ethnic original are automatically Muslims. Under some pretty common interpretations of Islam, to leave Islam is to be invite death. Yes, great freedom of religion there. Next time I come to Earth I'll sure want a nice holiday before I get back to work. I know Thailand and Malaysia are pretty low on the list of places I'd like to visit, and so they should be for anyone not wanting their money to support these guys who make my old neighbors in Nazareth (you know who you are!) seem progressive by comparison.

They tend to forget these things in their tourism adverts. To be fair, the U.S. rarely mentions the genital groping TSA when looking for tourists, and they rarely publicize the notion of "constitution free zones" wherever Bush/Obama decide that discarding freedom in the face of a marginal and unlikely threat is the right thing to do. Perhaps Spain is where I'll head to. Good food (the olives in Heaven are disappointing) and wines, and the women are exceptional if you can stand the tempers.

Isn't Malaysia the country where you can be arrested for insulting the king? Who cares about whether this law "goes too far"?

When you say "the country" you seem to be implying that there is only one country were "lese-majesty" is a crime. That is not the case. Also, I cannot find any evidence that even a single person has been arrested for "lese-majesty" in Malaysia. At least in modern times. Do you have a reference?

I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

Because the world wide web is this new and mysterious thing, full of boobies and buzzwords. I imagine the obsession with "cybering-up" nouns will die out as more and more of the population log on and begin surfing the information superhighway.

Christ, when I hear the cyber thing it puts me in mind of elderly white men trying to connect to young black youths by saying "you da man" and expressing an appreciation for the raps of Ice Tea.

You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person. Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that. Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.

You can walk away, which is the equivalent. It's already happened, the damage has been done. Here in Canada, (and I've seen several in the US as well) there have been quite a few cases of openly gay high school students committing suicide after being verbally bullied for many years. It's not that easy to turn it off in real life, or on-line without cutting yourself off from society at large. Most of the "nerds" that I know put up with pretty much the same thing in school. I'm quite surprised that people her

Online bullying may have analogues to real life bullying but they are not equivalent. While assault may be something different than bullying, in real life there is an implied threat of immediate assault which may make one more hesitant to just walk away. Online is just not the same even if it is a bad thing.

You can walk away, which is the equivalent. It's already happened, the damage has been done. Here in Canada, (and I've seen several in the US as well) there have been quite a few cases of openly gay high school students committing suicide after being verbally bullied for many years. It's not that easy to turn it off in real life, or on-line without cutting yourself off from society at large. Most of the "nerds" that I know put up with pretty much the same thing in school. I'm quite surprised that people here on SlashDot are having a hard time grasping the concept.

I think it's because when we were kids being cyberbullied, the only people who were bullying us were other nerds and the only people who knew about it were other nerds. And we could get back at them by hacking into their BBS and deleting their warez. Revenge is a dish best served cold and all that.

Not that I would ever do that. I'm speaking completely hypothetically.

True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle. You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

Even if you can sue them for slander and win, your life will be pretty difficult when your potential employers google you and see "John Q. Target has been accused by several local farmers of sexually assaulting their

True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle.

Why are you readily giving up your information on the internet, anyway? Why are people in your social circle believing random rumors? Perhaps they're not people you'd like to have in your "social circle."

You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

And whose fault is that, really? The people who believe the rumors and then act on the misinformation. I'd say they're mostly at fault for that bit of stupidity.

My point is you don't even have to own a damn computer to get cyber bullied or slandered.

First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?

And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals." You cant just tell the people who won't hire you that they're being stupid and have them go "Oh you're

First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?

No one. But in that case, you probably have a real bully on your hands.

And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals."

Employers will believe random rumors about you? As I said, I believe that is simply idiotic. Some seem to like to blame others for their own stupidity. "Sorry I buy into random rumors spread around on the internet, but it's that other guy's fault, I swear!"

Perhaps rather than blame a few individuals spreading idiotic rumors on the internet (although I'd say they are at fault for spreading the rumors), we blame the people actually 'harmin

Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that.

Actually bullying and assault are the same thing. What I object to most about all this cyber-bullying nonsense is the attempt to redefine the word "bullying" to include insults as well. Back when I went to school, bullies were students who beat up other students. People who shouted insults were known as jerks.

Please people write anything you want about me it means nothing at all, since again I don't have to read or care.

You posted this as an Anonymous Coward because you know this simply isn't true. Give your real identity and make the same request. See how things go for you when the top couple result for googling your name and address are people complaining about how you raped their poor innocent family pet or mentally challenged sister.

Potential employers don't even have to believe the accusations. They'll refrain from hiring you simply because they don't want your name associated with their business.

The only difference is that online bullying leaves a very undeniable mark, unlike real bullying which is easily brushed aside as little Geeky "fell down the stairs", clumsy little idiot that he is, and we'll leave it at that because besides him, nobody will actually raise a voice about it and there won't be any evidence it has been otherwise. Bully says he fell down the stairs, teachers follow up because it's easier that way and everyone is happy.

In my opinion, there is something wrong with someone if they're so oversensitive that they can't withstand a random person on the internet mocking them. I don't even know how such people manage to survive in society.

Bullying is not assult, it's intimidation and harrasment, sometimes to the point of mental torture (especially for children and teens), people are not complaining about random insults from random trolls they are complaining that real life bullying is extended to online harrasment. The online bullies are KNOWN to the victim, there is no way for the victim to escape their attention in RL or online.

Anyone who thinks an insult is the same as a punch, has never had to deal with a real bully.

I went to school in the 60's, throughout grade school there was a girl in my level called Allison. Nature had not

It's because lawmakers likely teach their children how to bully, but don't know enough about cyberbullying to do the same. Also, bullying is less likely to harm the bullies political career later in life. It's much harder to 'expose' your opponent if all you have is the word of a former victim, then it is if you have detailed transcripts of everything he/she wrote.

So cyberbullying makes a hands fell-good tough-on-crime target. Prohibit something that they don't care about, but many parents do.

However there seems to be a real failing in this law to differentiate between push and pull 'sic' cuber-bullying. The bully visiting you and hurling insults versus you visiting the bully and being insulted or meeting on neutral ground and being insulted. What level of exchange constitutes bullying and minors versus adults. Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels, well that another story, perhaps it has

Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels

Probably because there is no way to stop them. The parents are the only ones who have a chance to stop them, but some simply don't care (and for good reason, in my opinion). I don't see any point in stopping them, either.

I can understand what leads to laws such as this, or the recent NY attempt to eliminate anonymous posting. I don't entirely support the logic, but I can understand it:

We've always had the ability to be anonymous in our insults. We can shout our insults from the crowd or dress up in white robes and a hood to attend the KKK rally. But the major difference is that in those cases, we are not so easily free of the consequences of our actions. It is easy now to post pretty much anywhere under a false or non

I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

Because there are twp properties about the Internet that do not apply to local life as we're used to.

1) The internet memory is infinite, and forever. Attempts to wipe the memory result in it being more spread out and diverse (aka Streisand Effect). Once something is

For anybody who wants a basic overview of Malay law regarding these matters, there's an issue of the Malayan Law Journal (actually an article supplement) that covers this in language easily understood by the layperson (and it's also in English, to boot). The PDF is located here: http://jeraldgomez.com/pdf/7cd40a1889d4539feffda786372ff33b.pdf [jeraldgomez.com] and I would point you to page 3 (page 4 of the PDF).

Basically, they are based on English Common Law, and signed the UDHR, but have a history of legislation that allows detention without trial, originally designed to combat communism.

Any law that removes freedoms guaranteed in the constitution for the purpose of fighting any specific "undesirables" because these are "special circumstances", is a law that will be used to crush dissent, "wrong" opinions, and generally keep people in power in power. These are all slippery slope laws that have no business in modern societies.

Basically, they are based on English Common Law, and signed the UDHR, but have a history of legislation that allows detention without trial, originally designed to combat communism.

And the United States of Amerika has Gitmo for indefinite detention of those the government unilaterally deems without trial to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Funny how a US military base is located in a Communist country yet there own citizens cannot visit the island nation as tourists...though they could visit if deemed a terrorist. Lovely world when logic and ethics, much less the rule of law, cease to mean anything.

Child soldiers, too [wikipedia.org]. He was 15 when they arrested him, and his detention at Gitmo (and continued detention in Canada) is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of child soldiers.

Sure, and when I steal a screwdriver from your unlocked garden shed, you should be held legally responsible when I later break in to your house to stab some sense in to your head. Do we really want requirements for holding online accounts to be akin to owning guns?

You should be responsible for what happens on your internet connection and online accounts...

The Internet wouldn't be economically viable if you applied that rule equally to everyone, because no company could risk the liability of providing any form of large-scale transit service.

You could set some arbitrary dividing line somewhere on the scale from 'householder' to 'multinational telecoms corporation', but why should they have greater protection under the law when they provide a service to me, than I have providing a service to my family?

I'm asian and not a lawyer. However it is well known that the accuse here bear a some burden of proof. And you are not allowed to be represented by a lawyer while under investigation/interrogation. US laws do not apply here. I'm referring to general legal matters not referring specifically to the Internal Security Act which allow detention without trial.

I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.

Kinda curious on how they intend to apply this "law" to somebody OUTSIDE Malaysia "cyber-bullying" someone inside Malaysia.. The denizens of/. know how well laws like this work when applied to a world-wide medium like the internet, namely THEY DON'T!! I guess the old wisdom that you have to have 75% of your brain removed, 100% of your honesty to become a politician is true..

Cyber or not, the solution is the same: Turn the tables. Bully back! Make the bully the victim. It works like a charm.

Just be prepared to go to any length necessary in order to match and respond in kind.

Example: The bully beats up weaker kids and steal their lunch money (classic).Solution: Beat up the bully and steal all his money. Bigger brothers of the weak kid are the best to use here, but parents and even the odd biker will do. Just lay it on him and don't hold back. Make sure the bully knows that he as